 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
AWC
World NewsReturn
to AWC 2005 Conference Summary
Return
to AWC 2005 Conference Speeches
AWC 2005
Conference Speech
Remarks
by Brian J. Foley on Making War for Profit
AWC Conference, August 2-5,
2005
More than two years later, many
people still ask, "Why did the US invade Iraq?" Some
people answer, "For oil." Others say, "To remove
a dangerous dictator," or, "To liberate Iraqis,"
or, "To spread democracy." There are other possible
answers as well: To project power in the strategic and volatile
Middle East. To spread democracy. To help Israel. The question
lingers because the initial reasons that our government gave,
that Iraq had WMD and planned to use them against the US, or
that Iraq was allied with Al Qaeda, have been disproved.
Here's another answer to the
question: We invaded Iraq to invade Iraq.
That's right, it's a circular
answer. It might not be the only answer, it might not be provable,
but let's consider it: We invaded Iraq to have a war. We had
a war because there are powerful interests in our country that
are geared toward making money from war. How? Let us count the
ways. There are companies that help break things, by making the
tools for violence and destruction, such as Lockheed Martin and
Northrop Grumman. There are companies that fix what gets been
broken, such as Bechtel and Halliburton. There are companies
that protect people as they break things and as they fix what's
broken, such as Blackwater and Vinnell Corp. There are companies
that want our government to smash across borders so they may
bring new products and infrastructure, companies that we will
see set up shop in that country. There are companies that want
our government to smash across other countries' borders so they
may suck the resources out from underneath the people there,
such as the big oil companies. There are companies that will
just plain tell us about what's going on, and keep us entertained
in the process: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN.
This is war profiteering, but
with a twist. As we have understood the concept, war profiteering
amounted to, when there was a war, people tried to make a profit
from it. A company making clothes might also start making uniforms
and sell them to the army and make them as cheaply as possible
and sell for the highest price possible; the uniforms might turn
out to be shoddy. Now, though, companies are making war for profit.
Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Vinnell and Blackwater, such companies
would not exist as we know them without war.
This is not a conspiracy theory.
This is basic corporate law. Corporations are entities set up
to limit their owners' risk of liability while the owners maximize
profits. The directors and managers who run the company for the
owners have a legal duty to maximize profits. The owners (who
are often shareholders) can sue the directors and managers if
the directors and managers don't maximize profits in any given
situation. Moreover, these companies are not breaking the law
by serving the US military and government. Indeed, they believe
they are helping it. Look at these companies' websites. They
flaunt the companies' connections to the US government. Old Glory
and aggressive-looking eagles abound!
Forget "social responsibility,"
the idea that says a corporate manager may decide not to maximize
profits if doing so would harm other "stakeholders"
of the corporation, that is, individuals other than the company's
owners. Although many people can see how building weapons is
detrimental to other stakeholders (read: everyone on our planet),
what manager of a weapons company would ever decide not to sell
weapons anymore?
So, the weapons companies have
a legal duty to make as many weapons as possible and as cheaply
as possibly and sell as many of them as possible at the highest
possible price. The only limitation is the market. And these
companies will do whatever they can to capture the market and
expand their markets (just as if they were making and selling
toys or bracelets). So they aim to sell as many as they can to
the US government. And to foreign governments. If the rules say
they are not allowed to sell them to foreign governments or to
particular foreign governments, these companies' have an interest
in seeing those rules rewritten.
How do companies get the government
to buy their weapons? Marketing, for one. Good old fashioned
campaign donations and lobbying, for another. And newfangled
influence, such as getting one of their representatives to serve
on the Defense Policy Board, a group of 30 people who advise
the Pentagon. A 2003 study showed that 9 of the 30 members on
the Defense Policy Board were connected to weapons companies.
Then there is the "revolving door," where the companies
hire people from the government, and people from the companies
go work for the government.
Weapons companies also exert
influence through "position papers" and the like that
come from "think tanks" and "policy centers"
that include people connected to these companies (and other companies
with an interest in making war for profit). Some think tanks
are funded in part by weapons companies or other companies that
profit from war. Some of these companies even get a tax break
for such "charitable contributions." (For more on this,
I recommend William D. Hartung's book, How Much Are You Making
on the War, Daddy? (2003)).
But it's not just the government
that these companies seek to influence. They will try to influence
the media and the general public, through think tanks and through
advertising campaigns. They know that if there's a climate of
fear, then the public will be assuaged by the government's buying
more weapons. Various officials will work to show they're "tough
on defense." Officials "weak on defense" will
not stay in office long.
The companies also hire lobbying
firms. These firms make money from war, too. In fact, the US
government has hired PR firms to help the government "sell"
its wars, such as the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of
Iraq.
The problem has become worse
since the 1990s, when many military duties were "outsourced"
from the government to private companies. Troops don't build
their bases; private companies do. Troops don't deliver their
own mail, or cook their own food; private companies do. Private
contractors even interrogate prisoners captured on the battlefield.
If there are no troops, no bases, and no prisoners, such companies
can't make money.
Again, this is not a conspiracy
theory. It is institutions and people acting in their interests.
We all act in our own interests, one way or another. To think
that these institutions and people would not use all of the means
none of what I have described, by the way, is necessarily
against the law available to them to pursue their interests
would be naïve. So, this is a serious problem, because it
is so embedded in our economic and political system, our way
of life. It's also a problem that flies under the radar screen
of most of the public and even most activists.
What to do?
- "Return" the war-making
powers to Congress. This will help curb these corporations' influence
on the government. This is not a perfect solution, of course,
but Congress is the branch of government that is supposed to
debate the issue of going to war, and Congress is more transparent
than the Executive Branch. Right now the power is concentrated
in the Executive, and the decision to go to war has been streamlined.
Corporate interests can focus their energy there. It would be
harder for them to influence Congress, and their efforts and
the overall debate would be more transparent than it is now.
- Check out the War Resisters
League, the world's oldest secular antiwar group. The WRL is
waging a "Stop the Merchants of Death" campaign that
is teaching people about this corporate connection, about making
war for profit. (The head of this campaign, Simon Harak, coined
this phrase.) We must expose what is going on and educate the
public about it how our system is geared toward making war in
order to make profit. For example, the WRL recommends that we
join antiwar groups; campaign against our local "merchant
of death"; expose the profiteering on the Defense Policy
Board; demand that our government officials be free of conflicts
of interest; become activist shareholders in weapons companies;
take available legal action against companies that break the
law as they profit from war. The WRL has a speakers' bureau (I
am a member) that can provide someone to address your local school,
church, book group, talk group or the like. You can contact WRL
at www.warresisters.org
- Organize politically to increase
and improve social welfare programs. Many people don't speak
out because they're afraid of losing their jobs, which, in our
country, is a sort of death: no more job means no more money,
no more health care, no more pension plan. What Lockheed employee,
for example, wants to go to war protest when his boss might end
up seeing her marching and chanting "No Blood for Oil"
on TV? Who will email information about an upcoming antiwar protest,
or forward an incisive article about why the US should not invade,
say, Iran or Syria, when their employer can read the email? If
peoples' basic needs are provided for regardless of their employer,
they will become braver citizens.
This concern is especially acute
for young people, who have historically been a font of political
activism. Many fear they'll never be able to pay off their school
loans. Why join antiwar groups or go to protests when potential
employers might find out? If young people know they are headed
off to the corporate world, they might decide to make the transition
easier by adopting the attitudes and values of the companies
they plan to serve.
We can also get through to young
people by working to reveal that it is not a great thing to work
for weapons companies. Activists made working for Big Tobacco
look unpalatable. We can do the same thing vis a vis "defense"
companies. We can help provide information about alternative
careers that would let people work for social justice, and where
people can speak freely. Let's let young people know they are
being duped by these companies about war about bravery,
glory, fear, the need for war, and the like.
None of us wants to be duped.
But we have been duped, and we are being duped right now. The
biggest thing is, don't give in to fear. Don't give in to the
temptation that violence offers that violence is a simple
and quick solution to diplomatic and social problems. You don't
have to learn Arabic to bomb Iraq, for example. But we've seen
that bombing doesn't solve much of anything. Educate people about
the success of diplomacy, peace work, exchanges, nonviolent movements,
etc. Our country's faith in weapons and war is based on our culture's
faith in violence. Drop this faith. Become a freethinker, a heretic,
face the truth. Declare your own "War on Terror"
a war on your own terror. Rigorously question statements and
assumptions by people when they warn that our nation is in enormous
danger. Be rational. Point out how we are being manipulated and
sold this philosophy of fear.
BRIAN J. FOLEY is a professor
at Florida Coastal School of Law and State
Chancellor for Florida for the International Association of Educators
for
World Peace. He can be reached at brian_j_foley@yahoo.com
Return
to AWC 2005 Conference Summary
Return
to AWC 2005 Conference Speeches
Home
Page | AWC Goals | AWC
Branches | Archives
Resolution
2010 | Human Manifesto | AWC History
United
Nations | AWC Staff | Join
Online Today | Worldometers
Contact Us
|
AWC World News Return to AWC 2005 Conference Speeches AWC Conference, August 2-5, 2005 More than two years later, many people still ask, "Why did the US invade Iraq?" Some people answer, "For oil." Others say, "To remove a dangerous dictator," or, "To liberate Iraqis," or, "To spread democracy." There are other possible answers as well: To project power in the strategic and volatile Middle East. To spread democracy. To help Israel. The question lingers because the initial reasons that our government gave, that Iraq had WMD and planned to use them against the US, or that Iraq was allied with Al Qaeda, have been disproved. Here's another answer to the question: We invaded Iraq to invade Iraq. That's right, it's a circular answer. It might not be the only answer, it might not be provable, but let's consider it: We invaded Iraq to have a war. We had a war because there are powerful interests in our country that are geared toward making money from war. How? Let us count the ways. There are companies that help break things, by making the tools for violence and destruction, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. There are companies that fix what gets been broken, such as Bechtel and Halliburton. There are companies that protect people as they break things and as they fix what's broken, such as Blackwater and Vinnell Corp. There are companies that want our government to smash across borders so they may bring new products and infrastructure, companies that we will see set up shop in that country. There are companies that want our government to smash across other countries' borders so they may suck the resources out from underneath the people there, such as the big oil companies. There are companies that will just plain tell us about what's going on, and keep us entertained in the process: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN. This is war profiteering, but with a twist. As we have understood the concept, war profiteering amounted to, when there was a war, people tried to make a profit from it. A company making clothes might also start making uniforms and sell them to the army and make them as cheaply as possible and sell for the highest price possible; the uniforms might turn out to be shoddy. Now, though, companies are making war for profit. Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Vinnell and Blackwater, such companies would not exist as we know them without war. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is basic corporate law. Corporations are entities set up to limit their owners' risk of liability while the owners maximize profits. The directors and managers who run the company for the owners have a legal duty to maximize profits. The owners (who are often shareholders) can sue the directors and managers if the directors and managers don't maximize profits in any given situation. Moreover, these companies are not breaking the law by serving the US military and government. Indeed, they believe they are helping it. Look at these companies' websites. They flaunt the companies' connections to the US government. Old Glory and aggressive-looking eagles abound! Forget "social responsibility," the idea that says a corporate manager may decide not to maximize profits if doing so would harm other "stakeholders" of the corporation, that is, individuals other than the company's owners. Although many people can see how building weapons is detrimental to other stakeholders (read: everyone on our planet), what manager of a weapons company would ever decide not to sell weapons anymore? So, the weapons companies have a legal duty to make as many weapons as possible and as cheaply as possibly and sell as many of them as possible at the highest possible price. The only limitation is the market. And these companies will do whatever they can to capture the market and expand their markets (just as if they were making and selling toys or bracelets). So they aim to sell as many as they can to the US government. And to foreign governments. If the rules say they are not allowed to sell them to foreign governments or to particular foreign governments, these companies' have an interest in seeing those rules rewritten. How do companies get the government to buy their weapons? Marketing, for one. Good old fashioned campaign donations and lobbying, for another. And newfangled influence, such as getting one of their representatives to serve on the Defense Policy Board, a group of 30 people who advise the Pentagon. A 2003 study showed that 9 of the 30 members on the Defense Policy Board were connected to weapons companies. Then there is the "revolving door," where the companies hire people from the government, and people from the companies go work for the government. Weapons companies also exert influence through "position papers" and the like that come from "think tanks" and "policy centers" that include people connected to these companies (and other companies with an interest in making war for profit). Some think tanks are funded in part by weapons companies or other companies that profit from war. Some of these companies even get a tax break for such "charitable contributions." (For more on this, I recommend William D. Hartung's book, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? (2003)). But it's not just the government that these companies seek to influence. They will try to influence the media and the general public, through think tanks and through advertising campaigns. They know that if there's a climate of fear, then the public will be assuaged by the government's buying more weapons. Various officials will work to show they're "tough on defense." Officials "weak on defense" will not stay in office long. The companies also hire lobbying firms. These firms make money from war, too. In fact, the US government has hired PR firms to help the government "sell" its wars, such as the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The problem has become worse since the 1990s, when many military duties were "outsourced" from the government to private companies. Troops don't build their bases; private companies do. Troops don't deliver their own mail, or cook their own food; private companies do. Private contractors even interrogate prisoners captured on the battlefield. If there are no troops, no bases, and no prisoners, such companies can't make money. Again, this is not a conspiracy theory. It is institutions and people acting in their interests. We all act in our own interests, one way or another. To think that these institutions and people would not use all of the means none of what I have described, by the way, is necessarily against the law available to them to pursue their interests would be naïve. So, this is a serious problem, because it is so embedded in our economic and political system, our way of life. It's also a problem that flies under the radar screen of most of the public and even most activists. What to do? - "Return" the war-making powers to Congress. This will help curb these corporations' influence on the government. This is not a perfect solution, of course, but Congress is the branch of government that is supposed to debate the issue of going to war, and Congress is more transparent than the Executive Branch. Right now the power is concentrated in the Executive, and the decision to go to war has been streamlined. Corporate interests can focus their energy there. It would be harder for them to influence Congress, and their efforts and the overall debate would be more transparent than it is now. - Check out the War Resisters League, the world's oldest secular antiwar group. The WRL is waging a "Stop the Merchants of Death" campaign that is teaching people about this corporate connection, about making war for profit. (The head of this campaign, Simon Harak, coined this phrase.) We must expose what is going on and educate the public about it how our system is geared toward making war in order to make profit. For example, the WRL recommends that we join antiwar groups; campaign against our local "merchant of death"; expose the profiteering on the Defense Policy Board; demand that our government officials be free of conflicts of interest; become activist shareholders in weapons companies; take available legal action against companies that break the law as they profit from war. The WRL has a speakers' bureau (I am a member) that can provide someone to address your local school, church, book group, talk group or the like. You can contact WRL at www.warresisters.org - Organize politically to increase and improve social welfare programs. Many people don't speak out because they're afraid of losing their jobs, which, in our country, is a sort of death: no more job means no more money, no more health care, no more pension plan. What Lockheed employee, for example, wants to go to war protest when his boss might end up seeing her marching and chanting "No Blood for Oil" on TV? Who will email information about an upcoming antiwar protest, or forward an incisive article about why the US should not invade, say, Iran or Syria, when their employer can read the email? If peoples' basic needs are provided for regardless of their employer, they will become braver citizens. This concern is especially acute for young people, who have historically been a font of political activism. Many fear they'll never be able to pay off their school loans. Why join antiwar groups or go to protests when potential employers might find out? If young people know they are headed off to the corporate world, they might decide to make the transition easier by adopting the attitudes and values of the companies they plan to serve. We can also get through to young people by working to reveal that it is not a great thing to work for weapons companies. Activists made working for Big Tobacco look unpalatable. We can do the same thing vis a vis "defense" companies. We can help provide information about alternative careers that would let people work for social justice, and where people can speak freely. Let's let young people know they are being duped by these companies about war about bravery, glory, fear, the need for war, and the like. None of us wants to be duped. But we have been duped, and we are being duped right now. The biggest thing is, don't give in to fear. Don't give in to the temptation that violence offers that violence is a simple and quick solution to diplomatic and social problems. You don't have to learn Arabic to bomb Iraq, for example. But we've seen that bombing doesn't solve much of anything. Educate people about the success of diplomacy, peace work, exchanges, nonviolent movements, etc. Our country's faith in weapons and war is based on our culture's faith in violence. Drop this faith. Become a freethinker, a heretic, face the truth. Declare your own "War on Terror" a war on your own terror. Rigorously question statements and assumptions by people when they warn that our nation is in enormous danger. Be rational. Point out how we are being manipulated and sold this philosophy of fear. BRIAN J. FOLEY is a professor
at Florida Coastal School of Law and State Return to AWC 2005 Conference Speeches Home Page | AWC Goals | AWC Branches | Archives Resolution 2010 | Human Manifesto | AWC History United Nations | AWC Staff | Join Online Today | Worldometers Contact Us |